With President Bush's recent veto concerning stem cell research funding, hope for finding quick cures to many devastating diseases has dimmed in this country. However, there is still a bright spot on the horizon for sufferers of juvenile diabetes.

Unlike type 2, or adult onset diabetes, juvenile diabetes is an autoimmune disease that only strikes children and young adults, and it can't be managed simply by changing eating and exercise habits. Also called "insulin-dependent" diabetes, the Type 1 version involves the complete shutdown of the pancreas, the body's natural insulin-producing organ. Without insulin, we can't process the food we eat. Blood sugars quickly climb to toxic levels while the body essentially starves.

Insulin injections provide life support to millions of Americans -- including my son -- but they aren't a cure. It's a daily game of "whack-a-mole" with life or death consequences, as sufferers alternately treat high and low blood sugar levels by administering insulin or carbohydrates. Over the long haul, diabetes takes its toll on the body, affecting the eyes, liver, heart, circulatory system, etc. It's not a pretty picture.

Luckily, through efforts of single-minded organizations like the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF), the likelihood of finding a cure during my child's lifetime is extremely high. Several promising therapies are coming closer to fruition -- from a "closed-loop" artificial pancreas that senses insulin needs and dispenses the hormone without human interaction, to targeted transplants of insulin-producing islet cells without the need for dangerous anti-rejection drugs.

The House and Senate have caught the excitement from their constituents over the closeness of a cure. In a rare show of bipartisan support, Senators Dorgan (D-ND) and Domenici (R-NM) have introduced a bill to reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program. This past week, Representatives DeGette (D-CO) and Kildee (D-MI) introduced the House companion bill. These bills will extend the Special Diabetes Program for five years and increase funding from $150 million per year for type 1 diabetes research to $200 million per year.

Despite the tremendous support for the bill, JDRF is urging voters to contact their representatives this week to ask for their vote in favor of S.1494 in the Senate and H.R. 2762 in the House. To make it easy, JDRF has set up a Web page that will automatically e-mail your legislators and ask for their vote. It takes only a minute, and could help millions lead longer, healthier and happier lives.

Clearing forests don't infringe upon the individual liberties of any human life.

Military spending is necessary and looking at the current influence of unilaterally-disarmed Canada and Europe, plus history going back to the agricultural revolution, those who skimp on such spending ultimately find themselves weak, marginalized, or destroyed.

Goverment oversight of certain radio frequencies helps merely with organisation and safety so that services dont overlap. The public does not, however, OWN the airwaves, making full government control (such as the Fairness Doctrine) constitutionally questionable. The government should merely provide oversight in most cases.

Nice shot from your liberal guns, but didn't at all address the OP's primary point, being that government funding for embryonic stem cells may possibly impede upon a living human beings liberties and therefore Uncle Sam shouldn't bankroll it.

Of course, as is typical of liberals both in blog posts and elsewhere, they forget to mention that it merely bans federal funds from being used in ethically questionable research. States are free to fund it, as are biotech firms, and as are foreign countries, essentially meaning almost no significant negative impact to research overall is coming by this ban. Other sources privately and around the world will pick up the slack.

Did do a good job of cherry picking the weakest single part of the post but no need for propaganda games here. I bet you'd be able to make great political commercials with sound-bites from opponents, though.

Just to be clear, I take exception only to the introduction of the blog post and wrekd's response to the OP. My own mother and most of her family has diabetes and it's good to hear about the progress being made in the field. The blog just opened itself up to a whole nasty can of worms with its opening couple lines is all, which made it go from an article all could applaud to reducing it to something likely to stir the pot. I now suspect 10 or 20 back-and-forth posts between moderates, conservatives and liberals who want to blame everything down to beach erosion on the Bush administration and those who dare go to church on rare occasion or hold different opinions.

Hold up a second...Liberal guns? I'm not trying to enforce policy or my ideals here.

All I was trying to say was, we don't get to pick and choose how our tax dollars are spent (directly spent that is, yes indirectly with democratic elections and yadda yadda). It would not be the first time I have been accused of making encrypted responses. I'm sorry if you failed to read my mind ;)

You do have to remember that the President VETOED funding. That alone must mean some people do not find it immoral.

Where do you draw the line on how many people need to think something is moral/immoral before you fund/deny funding? I believe the President’s veto had everything to do with religion. And I believe that making Government decisions based on religion is immoral.

Wait a second. My tax dollars pay the President's salary. [How can you morally justify advocating the forceful seizure of individual earnings via government taxation,] and spending it on an individual's salary when the decisions he makes...you get the idea.

I'll not disagree much except to say the system is working as intended (Presidential veto powers existing to check the power of Congress) as far as your second post goes and that I won't go much further than to take exception with the first couple lines of the blog, but your first post did clearly insinuate that people who don't hold your moral values essentially on abortion (as the issue is the same, embryo's or young lives being destroyed for one purpose or another) are deeply ignorant.. namely, that we all think our great grandfathers had pet dino's.

Additionally, our framers warned against precisely this type of moral hazard, that the will of the masses would, in democracy, ultimately find a way to trample upon the liberties of the minority. If the government followed the Bush model on stem cell research and abstained from much beyond keeping the food safe, keeping the drugs safe, and defending the shores and borders from our enemies, this type of moral hazard wouldn't be an issue because the federal government wouldn't be empowered to take any action that could possibly make it an issue.

WOW! What a brilliant response to his post! You _clearly_ showed him! I mean, how could a combination of stereotyping him and showing your own ignorance not shut him up? :-/

Actually, if you ever decide to crawl out of your little bubble, you might just realize that the belief that life starts at conception isn't just an evangelical doctrine, but actually makes a lot more sense scientifically and logically.I challenge you to fully read through http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/cloningreport/app...

If you can fully read through and understand that article, and still disagree, well... at least I have respect for you for trying to understand the issue.